I just read Jean Baudrillard’s “The Precession of Simulacra.”
Whoa, baby. This stuff is out there.
I am thoroughly confused by Baudrillard, but I understand the heart of the essay – that the real no longer exists. In modern and in Marxist theory, two things existed: the real and the copy. The copy ruined the real by taking away its authenticity and value. According to Baudrillard, in a postmodern world, the copy is made without the existence of an original, constructed without a basis on reality. Then, “reality” is based on the simulacra, ie: we change our hair, clothing, and style to match what we see on TV.
When I was reading this essay, my brother walked into my room and asked me what I was reading. As usual, I went off and gave more information than necessary. As I was explaining to him Baudrillard’s theory about Disneyland serving as the hyperreal America, he said, “The person who wrote that must have been on something.”
Perhaps my brother put it harshly, but as of right now, I kind of agree that Baudrillard is a bit farfetched. I definitely don’t know my postmodern theory, but what I can’t get over is this:
How can a hyperreal form exist without some image of the real on which to base itself? Baudrillard insists that simulations become reality; therefore, it seems that the real must exist before a simulation can be made. What then happens to the initial aspects of reality? Are they simply displaced by simulacra? Do they lose popularity to the spectacle of the simulations?
Furthermore, if the real no longer exists, why is it confused with that which is simulated? Baudrillard challenges the reader to simulate a bank robbery. Grab a prop gun, take a fake hostage, and pretend to hold up a bank. Even though you intend to produce a simulation, police will arrive to arrest you. We believe that reality is real, but it’s supposedly illusion. If we accept anything as real, whether it’s real or simulation, then why is a simulation formed in the first place? What is to be gained or learned from simulation?
Take for example the simulation of the female form. Today, the idealized image of a woman is just a fraction of her real form then abstracted through cosmetic surgery. What is the purpose of developing this simulated image? To destroy self-esteem and self-worth? To eliminate individuality? To develop a new definition of beauty?
I realize I’m asking silly questions and talking in nonsensical circles. Therefore, I’ll refer you to some websites if you’re looking to get a better grip on Baudrillard. If you have some resources to share with me (Baudrillard for Dummies, perhaps?), please leave a comment. Your input is appreciated.
Baudrillard on the Web: This site includes translations of other essays by Baudrillard (“Disneyworld Company” and “Plastic Surgery for the Other” are of particular interest to me) as well as links to other scholarly projects concerning his work.
Baudrillard’s biography at The European Graduate School website
International Journal of Baudrillard Studies: Can’t get enough of Jean? Check out the journal dedicated entirely to discussing and interpreting his work! It’s a new journal too, having first appeared in January 2004. Volume 2 Number 1 features a piece written by Douglas Kellner!
Reality of Simulation: This website claims to be “the most complete on-line collection of articles by Baudrillard.”
Posted by Kate Cielinski at April 17, 2005 5:09 PMBaudrillard is not where I would START for post-modernism. Nietzsche is far less scary. (My apologies for not being more familiar with your blog, I hope this advice isn't redundant.)
But in response to your questions: we're not looking at specific simulacra/real binaries, we live in a world that is a "Precession of Simulacra," where simulacra interact, exchange, reproduce even cross-pollinate. Like the science fiction model of robots making more robots, the real is completely superfluous and obsolete.
As for your question on beauty standards, perhaps the question can be propped open with an inquiry into why women perpetuate these beauty myths. I think it has to do with cultural literacy narratives. A woman who wears make-up is displaying a competancy in a system (of exchange?) that a woman without make-up has alienated herself from. Think tattoos: in Samoa, a tattoo is a physical display of one's place in the heirarchy; in aboriginal Tasmania, scarification was a visual and tactile proof that one knew the land and knew how to survive on it. There is an unavoidable normative judgement that accompanies these literacies, because literacy is, at its core, a matter of community. The self/other binary is value-laden. Back to simulacras, to display literacy in a system is to show which "reality" one exists in: is to display investemtns, biases and assumptions that help our interlocutors to locate us. We can't communicate if we don't speak the same language.
Posted by: Adryan at January 25, 2006 10:51 PM